University of Ottawa Ombudsperson - Progress Report I - Action taken following the recommendations...

7/30/2019 University of Ottawa Ombudsperson - Progress Report I - Action taken following the recommendations from the Fi

1/10


2/10

Progress Report I: Action taken following the recommendations from the First Annual Report.

2

Table of Content

I. OC Transpo Universal Transit Pass (U-Pass)

Initial response from SFUO

Update from the Vice President, University Affairs at SFUO,Elizabeth Kessler (October 2012)

II. Issue of procedural fairness in the examination of complaints of discrimination

Initial response from Vice-President Academic andProvost of the University, Franois Houle (August 2011)

Update from the Office of the Vice-President Academic andProvost of the University (October 2012)

III. The full participation of students with an auditory disability

Initial response from the Vice-President Academic andProvost of the University, Franois Houle (August 2011)

Initial response from SFUO

Update from the Office of the Vice-President Academic andProvost of the University (October 2012)

Update from the President of SFUO, Ethan Plato (October 2012)


3/10


3

I. OC Transpo Universal Transit Pass (U-PASS)

The Ombudspersons recommendations:

1. Given the complexity of negotiating a single U-Pass between two different service providers,two municipalities in two different provinces, it is recommended that the Student Associationswith the support of the University, approach the STO with the goal of negotiating an agreementto procure a U-Pass for Quebec residents within the STO territory. The proposed agreementshould then be put to a vote by referendum for Qubec STO residents only.

2. Given that the small minority of students residing in Qubec but outside the STO territorycould not, by virtue of their small number, have a reasonable expectation of influencing theoverall vote, and given that they are unlikely to use the U-Pass, they should be given the optionto opt-out of the program or should be exempted. It seems unreasonable to expect these studentsto support the public transportation costs of other students. Alternatively, if it is impossible tonegotiate their exemptions from the universal program with OC Transpo, an increase in the costof the U-Pass for all users should be considered to offset the financial burden on these studentsand provide for reimbursement upon request.

3. It is recommended that any future referendum on the issue of the U-Pass specify clearly thecategories of students that would be exempted.

4. The University of Ottawa officials should take into consideration the impact of a furtherresolution concerning the U-Pass on the Qubec students residing outside the OC Transpoterritory in deciding on whether to agree to levy the incidental fees as part of tuition fees, andshould provide support in negotiating a separate agreement with the STO.

Initial response from the SFUO: not available.

Update from the Vice President, University Affairs at SFUO, Elizabeth Kessler

(October2012):

I wanted to thank you for bringing to our attention the complaints you receivedwith regard to the U-PASS program. We are certainly aware of the ways inwhich the program could be improved to better serve our members, and we arecontinuously working to improve it for future years. In 2012, students voted tocontinue the U-PASS program at a price of $180 per semester in light ofreduced transit options that are available and as such, the SFUO negotiated anew contract with OC Transpo for 2012.

I wanted to take some time to outline the work that has been done over the lastyear to improve the program for 2012-2013 and beyond, in order to serve ourmembers (and GSAED members for whom we also manage the program).First, the SFUO has always held the position that students who live in the STOarea of service should have access to the U-PASS. Currently, students who livein the STO Area of Service do not have access because the STO does not wishto be a part of the program. If the STO decides that they want to be a part of theprogram in the future, we are in a position to negotiate that with them. Weregularly communicate with the STO on a number of issues and they arecertainly aware that students who live in the STO Area of Service have anappetite for the U-PASS and that we would like to be able to give it to them.We are hopeful that this will be a possibility in the future.


4/10


4

Additionally, we have been working to allow some students, who cannotbenefit from the U-PASS program, to opt out of the fee. We were successfulthis year in creating a new exemption to the program to allow students who liveoutside of Ottawa to opt out. Previously, many students who commuted fromoutside of the city and therefore could not use the U-PASS had to pay for itanyway. Because of the demand from our members, we negotiated with OC

Transpo a process for students who live outside the OC Transpo Area ofservice to opt out. These students need only provide proof of their residence tous before a deadline at the beginning of the year to receive an exemption fromthe fee. We believe that this new opt-out, which is available for the 2012-2013academic year, will be beneficial to a large number of our members.

Finally, some students are unable to benefit from the program because theyhave disabilities that prevent them from being able to use public transit. This isa human rights issue, in that it is discriminatory to force someone to pay for aservice they cannot use because of a disability. In these cases, we request thatthe student provide us with medical documentation that specifies that they areunable to use public transit for a medical reason. In each case, we require theagreement of OC Transpo in order to grant the exemption. To date, whenever a

student has been able to provide the necessary medical documentation, we havebeen able to provide an exemption. We recognize that the procedure for thisshould be more clear, and we hope to develop a clear procedure the next timewe renegotiate the contract with OC Transpo.

The U-PASS program is highly valued by students at the University of Ottawaas the most affordable transit option for students. The SFUO is committed tocontinuing the program and to improving it as necessary for our members whoaccess it. I hope that this explanation of our work is helpful when speaking toour members about the U-PASS program.

Elizabeth Kessler

Vice President, University Affairs at SFUO


5/10


5

II. Issue of procedural fairness in the examination of complaints of discrimination

The Ombudspersons recommendation:

The purpose of this paper is to make the university aware of my concerns regarding thecomplaints procedure for student complaints of discrimination so that the necessary changes canbe made to ensure fairness and respect for all parties, especially students. As mentioned above, Ihave reviewed but a small number of complaints and therefore have not performed a systematicanalysis of this issue. Nonetheless, given the lack of written policies and procedures, I can onlyconclude that the way in which discrimination and harassment complaints are handled lacktransparency and are inconsistent between faculties. The complainant is not always right, but thedecision maker of the university must come to a decision in a way that is impartial, and in a waythat respects the rights of all the parties involved while managing the complainants expectationsand maintaining the confidentiality of the information collected. For now, I am pointing out theshortcomings I have found in the files that I reviewed, so that the university may become awareof them and consider ways to make the complaints procedure for harassment and discriminationcomplaints fairer.

Initial response from the Vice-President Academic and Provost of the University, FranoisHoule (August 2011):

I would first like to thank you for this opportunity to comment on these twodocuments:Issue paper on handling complaints of discrimination andAccommodation in and out of the classroomRecommendations towards thefull integration and participation of students with a hearing disability at theUniversity of Ottawa.

In the document addressing the discrimination and harassment complaintmechanism, you brought up a number of concerns and provided us with somevery helpful ideas for solutions. You indicated, however, that your concerns

came about after your involvement in a few cases and not as a result of asystem-wide review.

As you mentioned in your report, the University has created the Office for thePrevention of Discrimination and Harassment, replacing the former officeknown as the Sexual Harassment Office. The new office has a broader mandateand handles all types of discrimination and harassment cases involvingstudents. Complaints involving professors or staff members, however, arehandled through the Universitys Human Resources Service. After the newoffice was created, the discrimination and harassment prevention officerposition remained vacant for a few months. A new officer was hired and beganworking in August 2010. Although this is certainly not an excuse for the delaysand lack of information provided in the cases you were involved in, it seemsthe problems brought to your attention occurred during the transition period.The interim mechanism in place during this period did not seem to meet allneeds. We have since refined this mechanism to ensure such a situation doesnot repeat itself. Since September 2010, the Office has received about 80complaints, the majority of which involved students only. Most complaintswere resolved informally.


6/10


6

You also raised some concerns about the visibility of the mechanism in placeas well as how clear it was and about the fairness and effectiveness of theprocedures. In order to make the complaint mechanism clear and ensure theprocess is fair and effective, the University developed a draft policy on theprevention of discrimination and harassment, which was recently madeavailable to the entire university community, including your office, for

consultation. Despite our efforts, we have not been able to complete theconsultation process as quickly as we had anticipated, in part due to the factthat we are seeking feedback from all parties involved. We hope to completethe consultations as early as possible this fall. The draft policy contains themain principles found in current legislation. We have also developedprocedures for implementing this new policy in order to provide a frameworkfor the work of all individuals involved, to define their roles andresponsibilities and to establish the different steps of the complaint process. Byputting a policy and clear procedures into place that students, professors andother personnel have contributed to, we believe we will have the toolsnecessary to prevent and to effectively handle harassment and discriminationcomplaints. We expect the final approval of these tools before the end of thefall session.

In the meantime, we will continue to comply with current legislation andenforce the draft policy you received during the consultation process. We willalso work to raise awareness of the Office, the policy and procedures amongthe student population as soon as our students begin arriving on campus thisfall. I believe it is important to realize, however, that while some problems doexist, they should not overshadow the facts that numerous complaints havebeen resolved to the satisfaction of those students involved.

Thank you very much for your continued collaboration.

Sincerely,

Franois HouleVice-President Academic and Provost

Update from the Office of the Vice-President Academic and Provost of theUniversity (October 2012):

In February 2012, the University of Ottawa Board of Governors approvedPolicy 67a regarding the prevention of discrimination and harassment. Inaddition to this policy, the Central Administration also implementedadministrative procedures for the filing of both formal and informal complaintsfor students, staff and visitors on the University of Ottawa campus. These

procedures work to ensure fairness, respect and transparency in the managingof discrimination and harassment complaints filed by any member of theUniversity community and provide written and clear guidelines for complaintmanagement. The policy and procedures are displayed on the University ofOttawa website.


7/10


7

III. The full participation of students with an auditory disability

The Ombudspersons recommendations:

1. The University should develop a more comprehensive policy on Accessibility andAccommodation which includes roles and responsibilities and increases awareness of theresponsibility of the institution to achieve the full integration and participation of students with ahearing disability. It should also update its 2007 Accessibility Plan.

2. The University should undertake a systematic review of all its services to ensure accessibilityfor students with a hearing disability and develop an accessibility plan of action. Gaps, such asthose identified for Protection services should be addressed immediately.

3. The University should encourage staff and Faculty to complete the on-line training currentlyavailable to increase awareness and understanding of the accommodation process and of theirresponsibilities and establish a timetable to reach 100% completion rate.

4. SFUO should review how it reaches this student population to ensure that they receive the

services they are entitled to by January 2012, as required by ADOA. We encourage SFUOrepresentatives to adopt a proactive approach to this client population and to remedy accessibilitygaps such as the one identified for the Foot Patrol service.

5. When using audio tools, such as videos on its website, the University should ensure that it hasan appropriate alternative way to communicate the information to the students with a hearingdisability.

6. A comprehensive and centralized service should be offered for all University-related servicesfor students with hearing disabilities, both for academic and nonacademic requirements. Itwould make sense to consider mandating Access Service to offer such a service, provided that itis properly resourced to do so. It should also be emphasized that collaboration and consultation

between the students, the professors and Access Services Learning Specialists is a keycomponent to successful accommodation.

7. Access Service should adopt and communicate clear guidelines and procedures for accessingservices for academic and non-academic services. The procedures should include a feedbackmechanism with a simple and efficient complaint handling process.

8. The University should negotiate with the Ministre de lducation du Qubec a simplifiedprocess to obtain direct funding instead of requiring the students to remit to the University.

9. SFUO and the University should reach out to students with a hearing disability to offer them acomprehensive and adapted orientation to the University upon admission with respect to theirrespective services.

Initial response from the Vice-President Academic and Provost of theUniversity, Franois Houle (August 2011):

Response to recommendations 1, 2, 3 and 5: With respect to the report onaccess to services at the University of Ottawa for students with a hearingdisability, I would like first to highlight that we have a team of very competentindividuals who are dedicated to creating a fully accessible environment in


8/10


8

which the dignity and independence of each member of the Universitycommunity is promoted. In 2010, we created the position of senior accessibilitypolicy advisor. This advisor is responsible for setting the Universitys strategicdirection in the area of accessibility and for introducing measures required toensure that individuals with disabilities benefit from free and unobstructedaccess to campus life. A number of the recommendations put forward in your

report (1, 2, 3 and 5) fall under the policy advisors area of responsibility; shewill incorporate them into her work plan for the coming year. We have alreadybegun defining the roles and responsibilities in our procedures forimplementing the accessibility policy. We have also started the process ofupdating our accessibility plan. In addition, we have developed a new strategythat will be put into place this fall in order to promote and increaseparticipation in online accessibility training among members of the Universitycommunity. The advisor will also work with our faculties and services toimprove the various communication tools in order to make them moreaccessible.

Response to recommendations 6, 7, 8 and 9: Access Service and SASS willensure recommendations 6, 7, 8 and 9 in your report are addressed. First, the

idea of a one-stop centre will be examined carefully as well as other ideas thatmay help us improve access for students with a hearing or other type ofdisability. With respect to the guidelines and procedures for accessing services,we will look at current tools and see what can be done to improve them. SASSand staff in my office will get in touch with Quebecs Ministre de lducation,du Loisir et du Sport this fall to find solutions to the issue of financing Quebecstudents attending our institution. Finally, Access Service will review theorientation session offered to students with disabilities to find ways it can beadapted to the needs of students with a hearing disability.

As you see, we have already acted on a number of the points brought up inyour two reports. Your comments have been extremely valuable and have

helped guide our thinking and our actions in both these important areas.

Thank you very much for your continued collaboration.

Sincerely,

Franois HouleVice-President Academic and Provost

Initial response from SFUO to recommendation no. 4: not available.


9/10


9

Update from the Office of the Vice-President Academic and Provost of theUniversity (October 2012):

Response to recommendations 1 and 2: The University is in the process ofdeveloping a comprehensive policy and procedural guidelines on accessibilityand accommodation. A full-time senior accessibility advisor has been hired and

a number of accessibility committees are in place to develop this policy andensure accommodation for all students, including those with hearingimpairments.

Response to recommendation 3: The University continues to encourage allfaculty and staff to follow the online training currently available. In addition,other accommodation workshops have been developed, targeting specific areassuch as web development and creating accessible documents for teaching.

Response to recommendation 5: All new central website programming,including UoZone, is following Accessibility for Ontarians with DisabilitiesAct requirements.

Response to recommendation 6: This recommendation addressed theestablishment of centralized accessibility services for hearing- impairedstudents that cover both academic and non-academic requirements. The currentSASS Access Service mandate uses government funds to provide service forall full-time and part-time students registered in credit courses only. Forextracurricular activities, services are provided upon request since provincialfunds do not cover these expenses.

Response to recommendation 7: Access Service has revamped many of itsguidelines and procedures in an effort to make them clearer and more efficient.A separate document outlining all of the guidelines for accessing interpretationservices through Access Service was prepared in the summer of 2011 and has

been in circulation since September 2011. Access Service is currentlydeveloping a new online customer relationship tool called Ventus which willallow more documents to be accessed online and allow students to view theirfile and request changes through the web.

Response to recommendation 8: In the summer of 2011, the Office of the Vice-President Academic and Provost contacted the Quebec Ministry of Educationto explore the possibility of direct funding for Quebec hearing- impairedstudents studying at the University of Ottawa. At the present time, the Ministrydoes not want to make any changes to the way the funds are directed.

Response to recommendation 9: All newly registered students with disabilities

are invited to attend a summer transition program at the University of Ottawa.This program is funded by the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universitiesand has been in place for a number of years.

Update from the President of the SFUO, Ethan Plato (October 2012):

Response to recommendation 4: The Student Federation has been takingproactive steps to ensure that it is complying and exceeding the requirements ofthe AODA Standards, including customer service for students with auditory


10/10


10

disabilities. Last year, there was an ad-hoc Accessibility Committee created,and this year it was turned into a permanent committee to ensure that ourorganization is fulfilling its duty to accommodate. Included in these initiativesis mandatory accessibility training for all staff and board members, withtraining for all volunteers planned for next year. The committee is alsoresearching assistive technologies to be purchased for service delivery

purposes using the accessibility fund of the Federation. Further to that, it isdrafting a unified accommodation policy for the whole organization, isworking to establish a real-time notice of disruption system, and hascompletely redesigned its website to be Web Content Accessibility Guidelines(WCAG) 2.0 compliant. Finally, we are implementing a feedback process bothonline and in hard copy to allow us to best suit the needs of our members. This,along with the work of our Centre for Students with Disabilities comprises ouroverall approach to accessibility within our organization and the greateruniversity community. The timeline for these changes ranges from immediateor already accomplished to longer term.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Ethan PlatoPresident of the SFUO

University of Ottawa Ombudsperson - Progress Report I - Action taken following the recommendations...

Documents

Transcript of University of Ottawa Ombudsperson - Progress Report I - Action taken following the recommendations...